DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. NAGARA TRUST

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI #45 ITA 1273/2010 . DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant . . Through Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Adv. versus . NAGARA TRUST ..... Respondent Through None. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 26.08.2010 . The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ?the Act?) is directed against the order dated 8th January, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench : ?F? Delhi (for short ?the tribunal?) in I.T. Appeal No.4272 (Del) of 2009 whereby the tribunal has directed a remit to the Director of Income Tax which had rejected an application for renewal of recognition of the respondent under Section 80-G of the Act earlier granted in favour of the assessee-respondent. We have heard Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue who has vehemently urged that the tribunal in the obtaining factual matrix should not have remitted the matter but should have adjudicated the lis on the material brought on record. Learned counsel would submit that when the ITA 1273/2010 Page 1 of 3 facts are tell tale and easily perceptible, the tribunal would have been well advised to dispose the matter finally. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that when bare reading of the magazine `Nishaan? would clearly demonstrate that it was a commercial venture, there was no justification or warrant on the part of the tribunal to direct a remand. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions canvassed by Mr. Maratha we have carefully perused the order passed by the tribunal. On a scrutiny of paragraph 4 of the order passed by the tribunal, it is vivid that the tribunal has noted that there was no material to prove how the activities by way of publication of magazine `Nishaan? has a religious flavour or the activities have become commercial in nature. Be it noted, the tribunal had also observed that the rejecting authority had not taken note of the decision rendered by his predecessor. Mr. Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue would submit that the tribunal has exclusively been guided by the said factor. The aforesaid submission, in our considered opinion, is sans substance inasmuch as the tribunal though has referred to the same yet has addressed itself with regard to the lack of material on record and, accordingly, directed a remand to the competent authority for reexamination for the simon-pure reason the activity is the most important . ITA 1273/2010 Page 2 of 3 thing which has to be analyzed on proper scrutiny. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Maratha, learned counsel for the revenue and the result is inevitable dismissal of the appeal in limine which we direct. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . . MANMOHAN, J . . AUGUST 26, 2010 vk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1273/2010 Page 3 of 3 . $ 48